Atlanta Medical

[Samm]

@H_Arendt

You can only cling to "shall not be infringed’ if you cancel the qualifier about how infringement applies to a “well ordered militia”.

There is no qualifier to your 2nd Amendment Rights. The SCOTUS in Heller ruled that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right irrespective of the collective of the Militia. It’s well past time for you to start paying attention to what they ruled instead of hanging on to the myths that you have been repeating here.

[Samm]

@H_Arendt

@Steel-W0LF

“There is no right for the people to keep and bear arms that cannot be infringed……”. Wrong! That is precisely and 100% exactly what it’s wording says.

This is the text of the 2nd Amendment

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

The right to keep and bear arms exists to serve a purpose. Every other right enumerated in the Bill of Rights is enumerated without qualifier.

But the 2A is different as much as you want to pretend otherwise.

How does your access to guns enable the militia to maintain the security of a free state?

The prefatory clause regarding the Militia states the importance of the rest of the sentence. It is not a condition or a limitation on people’s right to keep and bear arms. And a precise reading infers that the Amendment does not create that right, and it very clearly avers that the Amendment is written to protect that right from being infringed (“shall not be infringed” is the strongest language in the entirety of the BoR) by the government.

Read Heller … the ruling is unambiguous in that it states that the right to keep and bear arms pre-existed the Constitution and that it belongs to the people, not the Militia.

[Samm]

@H_Arendt

If it is not a “qualifier” what is is?

A prefatory clause … Look it up.

[Samm]

@H_Arendt

@Steel-W0LF

Hint #1: it’s not a qualifier.
Hint #2: the people are “the militia”

The people are most definitely not the militia. I’ve read the Library of America’s wonderful volumes on “The Debate on the Constitution” and the militia most certainly is the Slave Patrols of the pre-13th Amendment United States.

The fact that it is a “well ordered” militia shows it is not the people in general. Its as specific organization of people. Remember, in the writing of the Constitution, most of the people didn’t have the right to vote; do you imagine the framers wanted to give them guns so they could take down the land holding elite who were the voters?

You have a good imagination, but none of that reflects pertinent fact regarding the intent or meaning of the 2nd Amendment. That’s one reason why we have a Supreme Court, so you can look to them for understanding of the Constitution rather than making it mean whatever suits your fancy … or agenda.

[Samm]

@H_Arendt

@conan

Courts disagree with you concerning the tight of people to bear arms.

Courts agreed with me for two centuries. Antonin Scalia disagreed with that tradition and rewrote 2A in the Heller decision, an egregious example of judicial activism. Nevertheless Scalia’s decision left several doors open for a variety of gun control measures; including banning types of weapons.

Do you agree with Scalia or are you just imagining some other court that agrees with your version of 2A.

No they didn’t. Scalia (in Heller) did not overturn any previous ruling of the Court.

[Samm]

@Steel-W0LF

@H_Arendt

@conan

Courts disagree with you concerning the tight of people to bear arms.

Courts agreed with me for two centuries. Antonin Scalia disagreed with that tradition and rewrote 2A in the Heller decision, an egregious example of judicial activism. Nevertheless Scalia’s decision left several doors open for a variety of gun control measures; including banning types of weapons.

Do you agree with Scalia or are you just imagining some other court that agrees with your version of 2A.

No they didn’t. They stayed pretty silent on it because it didn’t even come up until about the 30s….

And even in the 30s the courts ruled military arms could not be restricted, and the NFA and ATF have been operating in violation of that ruling for 80 years.

Correct. In Miller, the Court sided with the lower Court decision by erroneously saying that short-barreled shotguns were not military weapons so, therefore, possession and use of them was not protected by the 2nd Amendment. Without it being said, that ruling technically made the ATF restrictions on full-auto weapons, unconstitutional.

[Samm]

@H_Arendt

@Steel-W0LF

“Beginning with the operative clause, the Supreme Court first concluded that the phrase the right of the people…”

“Turning back to the prefatory clause, the Supreme Court majority concluded that the term well-regulated militia does not refer to state or congressionally regulated military forces as described in the Constitution’s Militia Clause….”

Right. I am arguing that a this violated the principle of constitutional originalism and constitutes judicial activism and overreach. My opinion of course. However the majority decision in Heller did not endorse an absolute ban in limits on access to guns, types of guns, etc. That court decision doesn’t exist yet, although many people pretend it does.

But the real issue I was raising was not my disappointment at conservatives abandoning their self proclaimed “Constitutional Originalism” but risk that gun rights advocates face if they are unwilling to work with 2A supporters like me to find a way to address the rising tide of public opinion that something has to be done at the constant drumbeat of dangerous misuse of guns.

That sounds an awful lot like compromise on “shall not infringe.” If you want to ignore those words, amend the Constitution and remove them. But until then, infringement (without due process) is unconstitutional.

And no offense, but “people like you” are not special. You © have to follow the Constitution too.

[Samm]

@H_Arendt

@Steel-W0LF

No they didn’t. They stayed pretty silent on it because it didn’t even come up until about the 30s….

And even in the 30s the courts ruled military arms could not be restricted, and the NFA and ATF have been operating in violation of that ruling for 80 years.

Military arms are not restricted? Have you tried to buy a hand grenade lately?

C’mon man. How many times does it have to be explained to you that grenades are ordnance, not arms?

[Guvnah]

@Samm

@H_Arendt

…

His drug use conviction made him ineligible to purchase guns and the medical center is a gun-free zone. What additional law would have prevented this?

He will continue not to answer this question.

[WuWei]

@H_Arendt

If it is not a “qualifier” what is is?

Reaffirmation. I gave you the grammar.

[Samm]

@H_Arendt

@Steel-W0LF

I’m willing to work with the gun control crowd the moment it’s done via the amendment process…… because “originalism”. It can’t legally be done any other way.

Under Heller, which is the ruling doctrine, there is great latitude to implement gun control. No amendment needed. So let’s get to work.

So, with respect to the OP situation, what’s your proposal to prevent such shootings? Go.

[Samm]

@H_Arendt

@Steel-W0LF

Read the “U.S, vs Miller” decision…… 1934 I think. (Memory)

I think you have U.S. Vs. Miller backwards. The court upheld the National Firearms Act holding that the only guns that could not be restricted were those directly connected to a well ordered militia. It was in rejecting cases like this that Heller becomes such an example of judicial activism.

He does not have it backwards. The Court in Miller held that a class of guns, specifically short barreled shotguns, were not protected because, the Court said, they had no history of military use (which was absolutely false.) In spite of the clear error of miss-characterization of the gun in question, by inference, that ruling should have eliminated the NFA ban on full-auto weapons because they obviously have military use. Why that did not happen is anybody’s guess, but the fact remains that that ruling has never been overturned and thus stands as precedent if anyone were to pursue a case.

Furthermore, the Heller ruling does not overturn or even contradict the Miller ruling. It simply clarifies the language in the 2nd Amendment that the prefatory clause in no way restricts or places conditions on the individual right of the people to keep and bear arms. The right existed prior to the existence of the Militia (it actually made it possible for the Militia to exist) or the Constitution. The Amendment simply protects the right (from government infringement) that belongs solely and specifically to the people irrespective of the existence of a Militia.

[Samm]

@H_Arendt

@Steel-W0LF

If it violates “shall not be infringed” you need an amendment.

Not according to Judge Scalia in Heller.

Local vs. Federal. Scalia left open the door for a municipality to set regulations regarding how, when and where guns may and may not be used within that jurisdiction.

[Samm]

@H_Arendt

@WuWei

You’re correct. It is the only one that says “shall not be infringed”

The 1st Amendment says “Congress shall make no law.” Shall we impeach Congress members who vote for laws because they violate the Constitution.

Cherry picking phrases renders the Constitution meaningless.

Yes, that is the second most restrictive statement in the BoR on the authority of the Government. But it’s not cherry picking or meaningless. Laws are only one type of infringement that may be imposed on a Right. The 2nd Amendment says NO infringement. Crystal clear “shall not infringe.”

[Samm]

@Munimula1

@Striker840

@Munimula1

@Steel-W0LF

@Munimula1

So given the events of the past few days, I am wondering what you all think.

1.Should undocumented people have the same rights as US Citizens to keep and bear arms, with no questions asked?

2. Should a mentally ill person, who reportedly “Also has drug use conviction, a failure to appear and a revocation of probation.” have the right to keep and bear arms, with no questions asked?

Are they US citizens?

If not then no, they don’t even have a “right” to stand on the square foot of land their feet occupy.

So, you’d support having to show proof of citizenship when buying. gun?

Yes, its called entering your SSN when filling out the background check form.

But I’m guessing you don’t have to show any proof currently, right? Would the NRA try to kill a regulation like that?

So far, your guesses have been completely wrong. Apparently, you have never bought a gun. This link is the form 4473 that must be completed before the NICS background check is done by the FBI and approval is given to the dealer to sell the gun to you. It will answer most if not all of your questions.

https://www.pdffiller.com/jsfiller-desk15/?requestHash=60523f4ac85d71ebf23409529a364e2be6aedf4e5b5aded82633cf1391a70a10&projectId=1268381620&loader=tips&MEDIUM_PDFJS=true&PAGE_REARRANGE_V2_MVP=true&isPageRearrangeV2MVP=true&jsf-page-rearrange-v2=true#bfefb371538240699bad0f9856a23cf1

It’s also worth noting that the law enacting the current NICS background check was sponsored by the NRA. Without their assistance the FBI criminal data base would not be available for use by the States to screen for and identify potential gun buyers who are legally ineligible to own a gun.

[Samm]

@Munimula1

Why was the Texas guy allowed to have it and shoot it in his yard even after the police had been notified several times?

He wasn’t. As an illegal immigrant and a convicted criminal, he could not legally possess those guns and shooting them in his yard was illegal under local law. As for the police ignoring him, that’s on them.

So what new law do you suggest to prevent recurrence of such incidents?

[Samm]

@H_Arendt

@Steel-W0LF

You’d guess wrong. They take your SSN, and a photo of your ID every time you buy a gun.

There are no background checks required for private sales.

But it is illegal to knowingly sell a gun to someone who may not legally possess it.

How about this … Give private individuals voluntary access to the NICS if they are unsure of the legal status of a potential buyer. But it is stupid to require background checks if you want to give a gun to a family member or sell one to someone you know well. That level of added scrutiny would do nothing to prevent crime not to mention that it would be completely unenforceable. The only reason the NICS works fairly well for dealer sales is because the dealer’s inventory is tracked from the point of manufacture. But once that gun leaves the store, it becomes Constitutionally protected, untraceable private property.

[Samm]

@Steel-W0LF

@H_Arendt

@Steel-W0LF

And?

You want to give Karen 2 houses down access to the NICS background check system?

Better than giving her free rein to sell guns to whomever shows up with a wad of cash.

Let’s just say you’re right and succeed and background checks for private sales passes.

How do you enforce it?

Gun registries are unconstitutional/illegal already. So say I own a gun, and want to sell it to my neighbor and I don’t bother with the background check that’s now law. You (the government) can’t prove I owned it, nor that I sold it.

You’ve got an unenforceable toothless law.

There is nothing to enforce. Private access to the NICS would be voluntary. What would be unenforceable is the sale itself because if the seller did not avail themselves of the background check service, the authorities would have no knowledge that the sale had taken place.

[gooddad409]

@DMK

@H_Arendt

I’m not pretending that any law or hoop will end all crime.

It would appear you’re targeting the law abiding, responsible gun owners with more rules and regulations when it is completely unnecessary.

Stand your ground laws? Absolutely.

Reminds me of the old bumper sticker. "When guns are outlawed only Outlaws will have guns".

Outlaws/criminals will always get guns even if all guns were outlawed.

They would just start smuggling them in from Mexico and other places.

That would leave the good guys disarmed and the criminals armed.

Maybe that’s the goal, after all criminals seem to be part of the dem tent. Votes.

[H_Arendt]

@gooddad409

Reminds me of the old bumper sticker. "When guns are outlawed only Outlaws will have guns".

Outlaws/criminals will always get guns even if all guns were outlawed.

What in this discussion makes you think “outlawing guns” is on the table?